Mayor Matt Brown and Members of Council

City of London
300 Dufferin Ave
PO Box 5035
London ON N6A 4L9

Re: Zoning By-Law Amendment and Definition of Supervised Consumption Sites

Re: Placement of Supervised Consumption Site at 241 Simcoe Street

In Respect to the Definition of Supervised Consumption Site As “Clinics”

As a resident in the City of London, I, in good conscience am adamant in my opposition to the proposed
zoning definition of supervised consumption sites as “Clinics” and respectfully request that Mayor
Brown and all Council Members consider the alternative of a distinct designation similar in nature to
that of the methadone clinic designation, more specifically, adopt a new zoning designation, “Clinic:
Supervised Consumption Site”.

Defining supervised consumption sites as Clinics would pave the way for their inclusion in certain
residential settings without community consultation and consideration for the consequences, so for
reasons identified throughout this letter, I do not believe this to be desirable or defensible. I further
believe that it would increase the probability of future litigation proceedings against the City of London,
due to probable infringements on the rights and freedoms of tenants in buildings where supervised
consumption sites are housed. Though let me be clear, I have no legal training nor experience with the
intricacies of law, and this letter is based solely on my understanding of the rights afforded us as citizens
and our freedoms from discrimination, particularly, as they relate to actions of government and their
public entities.

I encourage Council to refrain from designating supervised consumption sites as “Clinics” given the
attendant requirements and the special nature of both the activities and population served by these
sites. I further encourage Council to designate these sites as “Clinic: Supervised Consumption Site” to
preclude the imposition of them on residential units without the need for zoning amendment
applications and/or exemptions and the attendant public consultations.

Should Council not be inclined to adopt the designation “Clinic: Supervised Consumption Site”, I
respectfully ask that Council consider passing a motion to refer the matter back to City Hall staff for
further examination of the potential consequences to both tenants and service consumers by placing
these sites in residential buildings.

In Respect to the Establishment of a Supervised Consumption Site in a Multi-Family Residential

Building, and Specifically, 241 Simcoe Street

This rushed, rationalized and imposed decision occurred without due consultation with residents and
without due consideration for the consequences to the equal access to and benefit of law, security of
person, psychological health and overall well-being of this residential community.

Page 1 of 5
While I recognize that London has a public health emergency due to opioid use and fully support public
health efforts to address this, I do not believe that locating a supervised consumption site in a
residential building, particularly a building tenanted by vulnerable persons and those already
marginalized by the greater London community is an appropriate response to London’s opioid
emergency. Nor do I believe that any such service should be in any residential building, outside of one
designated solely for such purposes due to the probable violation of Charter rights for the tenants
housed therein, amongst other considerations.

In respect to 241 Simcoe Street, my objections are not the result of NIMBYISM, but the result of a
process that I believe has failed the tenants that reside at this location. No efforts were made prior to
the decision taken to involve them, inform them of their rights, respect their rights, consider the impacts
on them, provide them access to sufficient information, provide them adequate time to organize, to
gather facts, and explore options for acquiring legal advice and representation.

My opposition to establishing a supervised consumption site at 241 Simcoe Street specifically, but with
items 1-5 & 9-10 applicable to all multi-family residential buildings, is grounded in the following beliefs:

1. It was not the intent of Health Canada to place publicly accessible supervised consumption sites
in non-public spaces, containing long-term residential dwelling units, as evidenced by the
probable Charter violations that are likely to result from the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act exemption afforded Supervised Consumption Sites, the erosion of tenants’ rights to their
freedom to enjoy and make use their space, the likely exposure to children and youth attendant
at these dwellings, the potential for Ontario Human Rights Code violations given that a
disproportionate number of “renters” that are housed through tenancy agreements are low-
income earners whether through employment or other privately or publicly available income
sources, and finally, the potential for increased scrutiny and exposure of individuals consuming
to both residents and visitors, alike.

2. The building at 241 Simcoe Street is zoned R7. This zoning does not allow for the establishment
of a supervised consumption site. Zoning of supervised consumption sites, like zoning for
methadone clinics, should have its own definition, separate and distinct from “Clinics” due to
contingent circumstances, as articulated throughout this letter.

3. The rationale applied to the line item that seeks to avoid Land Use Conflicts, specifically, “Not
within the interior of a residential neighbourhood” as observed in s.2. of Council Policy, Siting of
Supervised Consumption Facilities (SCF) and Temporary Overdose Prevention Sites (TOPS), should
further be applied to multi-unit residential apartment buildings; which can be said to be
microcosms of the broader definition of a residential neighbourhood containing the same
dynamics and composition, within a smaller, more contained geographical area.

4. No reasonable adult would willingly accept such an imposition on their place of residence,
including the probable violation of their rights and freedoms.

5. Inviting and permitting public, non-tenant foot traffic, removing communal seating areas and
other site embellishments to prevent loitering, and creating waiting areas impedes tenants’
abilities to enjoy their home environments contrary to Section 22, Residential Tenancies Act,
2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, that clearly states:

Page 2 of 5
 “A landlord shall not at any time during a tenant’s occupancy of a rental unit and before the day
on which an order evicting the tenant is executed substantially interfere with the reasonable
enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located for all usual
purposes by a tenant or members of his or her household.”

6. The establishment of a supervised consumption site at 241 Simcoe Street is outside the
mandate and mission of the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation in that it is a service
designed for a broader public community and not the tenants residing in Corporation housing;
and as such, it should not have been offered up nor approved as a supervised consumption site
by LMHC.

7. The removal of five affordable housing units from an already chronically inadequate supply
undermines the intent of London’s affordable housing initiatives and further exasperates the
untenable situation of homelessness. Given the dire consequences of homelessness, the
decision to further reduce the available quantity is irresponsible and should not be permitted to
occur. As noted in London & Middlesex Housing Corporation’s Strategic Plan 2017-2020,

“Housing is the solution to homelessness and adequate housing is a human right as stated by the
United Nations since 1948. People who experience unresolved chronic homelessness will have a
shorter lifespan due to serious physical and mental health challenges that are often
accompanied by co-occurring issues such as substance abuse.”

8. The location of a supervised consumption site at 241 Simcoe Street contravenes the residents’
rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code, s.2(1) and is discriminatory in that it has already
had and will continue to have a disproportionate impact on individuals with complex needs that
identify with Code protected grounds.

9. The location of a supervised consumption site at 241 Simcoe Street may violate the residents’
s.15. Charter rights to equal benefit of law and equal protection under law as a result of
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exemptions applicable to supervised consumption sites.

10. The location of a supervised consumption site at 241 Simcoe Street may violate the residents’
s.7. Charter right to security of person, particularly, the right against significant government-
inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual.

After speaking with a number of residents at 241 Simcoe Street, I am confident in conveying that they
are discouraged, hurt, angry and disenfranchised that they were not afforded reasonable due process
and believe that this decision has been deemed acceptable and unchallenged by anyone including the
broader London community, as a direct result of preconceived notions and stereotypes about who they
are, where they reside, and the marginalization and stigma attached to their lower level incomes and
other socio-economic factors; a stigma that they live with on a daily basis. They too believe that Health
Canada’s intent was not to place supervised consumption sites in non-public spaces such as people’s
homes, which by extension they consider the totality of the building to be, including communal areas
and grounds; and, they further believe that the decision to place the supervised consumption site at
their location was a reactionary decision due to the loss of other preferred locations, that was abetted
by the knowledge that the tenants, both individually and collectively, lack the social, political, legal and
financial resources to gather support, challenge the decision, and have their rights enforced. Further to

Page 3 of 5
this, they believe that the lack of backlash from the broader London community as has occurred with
almost every other proposed location, is evidence of a collective sigh of relief by Londoners that is
predicated on NIMBYISM and on bias based on stereotypes about 241 Simcoe Street and those who
reside within.

The decision to locate a supervised consumption site at 241 Simcoe Street is very concerning and
discriminatory. The Ontario Human Rights Code, s.2(1) states:

“Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation without
discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex,
sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.”

The Code requires that such decisions do not have a disproportionate adverse impact on or target
people or groups who identify with Code grounds and this extends not only to acquiring
accommodations or during evictions, but also during tenancy. Many of the residents at 241 Simcoe
Street identify with one or more of the Code grounds.

The decision to locate the supervised consumption site at 241 Simcoe Street fails to consider the unique
circumstances and lived experiences of the residents themselves.

1. The building and by extension, the residents, are negatively perceived, stigmatized and
marginalized in the community of London, as evidenced by its locally known denigrating
misnomer, “The Crystal Meth Palace”. A supervised consumption site will further enforce this
stereotypical view and will further stigmatize the residents and the building.

2. The building population includes vulnerable persons with complex needs and individuals at high-
risk of exposure to manipulation, intimidation, violence, homelessness, isolation, health
impairments, and other risks associated with a poverty-laden living ability. For some, this
exposure is further exasperated by additional issues such as limited mobility, cognitive
impairments, previous trauma and victimization, negative self-worth, an over-riding despair, and
a sense of futility and hopelessness. Inviting a broader community of non-resident individuals
into the residence unduly exposes tenants to the potential for further trauma and victimization.
The open invitation alone generates high anxiety and exacerbates PTSD symptoms amongst
those residents who have been previously victimized.

3. The residents include vulnerable individuals that are easily preyed upon by others, are easily
intimidated, have previously been disproportionally affected by issues resulting from substance
abuse, and many, particularly the senior population, respond and cope by isolating themselves
within their units. The increased foot traffic will detrimentally affect these residents and may
further lead to withdrawal and self-imposed isolation.

4. Daily exposure and increased proximity to Controlled Substances could trigger relapse for those
in the building that are currently in treatment for substance abuse, or are on their own,
attempting to abstain.

5. The residents have families and friends that visit them. Situating a supervised consumption site
here will expose these visitors, which include children and youth, to individuals under the
influence of controlled substances and potentially to erratic and unpredictable behaviours.

Page 4 of 5
 Conversely, individuals who have just consumed will be exposed to the scrutiny of residents and
visitors, alike.

The decision to impose this site upon the residents of 241 Simcoe Street has had immediate negative
consequences to the psychological health and well-being of some of the residents. This imposition has
further eroded an already limited perception of autonomy and sense of relevance, has created fear,
anxiety, anger, and despondency, and has quite frankly, thoroughly disregarded the health-enhancing
concept of community empowerment and decimated their right to self-determination. Not-
withstanding, the probable violation of their Charter rights, their Ontario Human Rights, and their
tenancy rights should the supervised consumption site be implemented.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.

Respectfully,

Bonnie Glazer

Page 5 of 5